Page 7 of 31 FirstFirst 123456789101112131417 ... LastLast
Results 79 to 91 of 396
  1. #79
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    3,741
    Quote Originally Posted by tedkidd View Post
    Imagine what would have happened if one side of a tower was cut down low. A huge part of lower Manhattan would have been crushed.
    Now according to Scrogdog, our resident scientist. To him it is impossible for a skyscraper to not fall into its footprint…regardless of the structural weakening sequence.

  2. #80
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Rochester NY
    Posts
    4,763
    Brian, that might be rephrased as a question unless you really want to put words in the mouths of others.

    Particularly when teasing or baiting you may lose capital with that approach. Of course you should do as I say and not as I do and watch the masters. They know how and where to draw the lines, AND how to not cross them.
    Which makes more sense to you?
    CONSERVATION - turning your thermostat back and being uncomfortable. Maybe saving 5-10%
    ENERGY EFFICIENCY - leaving your thermostat where everyone is comfortable. Saving 30-70%

    DO THE NUMBERS! Step on a HOMESCALE.
    What is comfort? Well, it AIN'T just TEMPERATURE!

    Energy Obese? An audit is the next step - go to BPI.org, or RESNET, and find an auditor near you.

  3. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by scrogdog View Post
    ?

    Ok, guess I'm having an off day becuase I'm still not getting it.

    The laws of physics are unchanging. As far as we know anyway. I think we have sufficient precedent at this point, wouldn't you say?

    You want facts on a "conspiracy"! I give you facts (for your hometown) nontheless, on a silver platter, and you are still to slow to catch on to what I am talking about? Obviously this "conspiracy" works, and you and the other mindless are the ultimate proof of its success.

  4. #82
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    3,741
    Quote Originally Posted by tedkidd View Post
    Brian, that might be rephrased as a question unless you really want to put words in the mouths of others.
    I tried to get him to speak in more specific terms but he won’t. But what little he did say, I thought I interpreted him correctly. Pardon me if I misunderstood him.

    I thought he said a building would fall down onto its footprint irrespective of where the charges were placed or what part of the structure begins to crumble first. That is the question I clearly asked him. If he did not give an answer to that question then he evaded it.

  5. #83
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Woburn, MA
    Posts
    6,897
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian GC View Post
    I tried to get him to speak in more specific terms but he won’t. But what little he did say, I thought I interpreted him correctly. Pardon me if I misunderstood him.

    I thought he said a building would fall down onto its footprint irrespective of where the charges were placed or what part of the structure begins to crumble first. That is the question I clearly asked him. If he did not give an answer to that question then he evaded it.
    Brian, it is difficult to continue this conversation until you learn what we're actually talking about here.

    First off, Ted is correct. What I said was that buildings don't topple.

    Thanks, Ted, good to know that someone can at least follow.

    Also, again, I'm not the scientist here, but I have posted thier work, which should clear things up for you. Now, if only you were willing to learn! That you don't wish to and instead continue debating from a position of ingnorace is stunning.

    Do you wish to understand progressive collapse, or not?

    Incidentally, chairs are not designed to progressively collapse.

    Now, just one example from one of the papers I posted talks about EXACTLY the type of damage the YOU claim should topple a building;

    Many disasters other than the WTC attest to the danger of
    progressive collapse, e.g., the collapse of Ronan Point apartments
    in the United Kingdom in 1968 Levy and Salvadori 1992, where
    a kitchen gas explosion on the 18th floor sent a 25-story stack of
    rooms to the ground; the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building
    in Oklahoma City, Okla., in 1995, where the air blast pressure
    sufficed to take out only a few lower floors, whereas the upper
    floors failed by progressive collapse
    ; the 2000 Commonwealth
    Ave. tower in Boston in 1971, triggered by punching of insufficiently
    hardened slab; the New World Hotel in Singapore; many
    buildings in Armenia, Turkey, Mexico City, and other earthquakes,
    etc. A number of ancient towers failed in this way,
    too, e.g., the Civic Center of Pavia in 1989 Binda et al. 1992;
    the cathedral in Goch, Germany; the Campanile in Venice in
    1902, etc. Heinle and Leonhardt 1989, where the trigger was
    centuries-long stress redistribution due to drying shrinkage and
    creep Ferretti and Bažant 2006a,b.
    Did you note the part that said "that took out only a few lower floors"? Isn't that just the type of damage you were curious about? Did the building topple? Nope. Did it progressively collapse? Yep.

    This is only one paper as well. There are many examples in the history of progressive collapse.

    The idea of progressive collapse can be seen in the design diagrams of, AGAIN, the articles that I posted. It's about weight distribution. Either the system is overwhelmed or it is not. Partial failures DO NOT cause toppling. PERIOD.

    Now, that's not to say that it is theoretically impossible to topple a building. If you were paying attention (that's a laugh in itself right there!) I implied otherwise when I said that the aircraft did not have sufficient mass. So, yes, an object with sufficient mass could very well topple a building. Would you mind telling me, in the name of logic, what such an object might be?

    Maybe you could hire godzilla to throw an aircraft carrier at the empire state building.

    Brian, get real. Buildings are designed for "real life" incidents. Even after the MIT studies, no engineer or scientists recommended a re-design. Here's what Thomas Eagar, The Lord Professor of Materials Science at MIT said;

    It would be impractical to design buildings to withstand the fuel load induced by a burning commercial airliner. Instead of saving the building, engineers and officials should focus on saving the lives of those inside by designing better safety and evacuation systems.
    In other words, while building codes certainly were affected, no one called for structural redesign as preparing for an aircraft strike would be impratical from a cost to benefit ratio standpoint. Instead, we focus on other systems that allow the building to be evacuated in the shortest amount of time possible.

    One more chance;

    http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/pe...Papers/466.pdf

    I suggest that you either read it, or concede the issue. You comments only show how much you DON'T know.

    Why would I bother continuing to debate someone who is CLEARLY clueless on the matter, especially when I have provided a way for you to become educated to some extent on the matter but refuse?
    "Social networking" is an oxymoron.

  6. #84
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    3,741
    Scrogg,
    If we stop with the condescending remarks and clarify our comments a little better we might get somewhere. There is something about Building 7 that I would like you to comment on if we could just get there.

    The reason I bring this up is the “Youtube” architects, structural engineers and demo professionals had these concerns and they made sense to me. You I assume are in opposition to their observations.

    We are talking about two different aspects of progressive collapse. One is: Will exploding/severing one quarter to one half of the vertical columns in a high-rise cause the remaining half to tilt (topple)? It might cause a progressive collapse of the effected half but who is to know what will happen to the reamining half of something the size of Building 7. BTW, if you Google ‘implosions gone wrong’ you WILL see a building fall like a tree (topple). So it can happen when half the vertical supports are taken out.

    The other aspect we are not clarifying properly centers on the evenness, levelness and uniformity of the collapse of Building 7. If some smaller portion of the building suffered vertical structural damage and gave way, why didn’t that portion of the build start dropping first? Why did the entire roofline drop in a level position if only a portion of the vertical structure beneath it collapsed?

    I understand the concept of progressive collapse and that it would be impossible to engineer the strength to avoid it. Demo crews utilize progressive collapse. The “Youtube architects and Engineers” are also familiar with progressive collapse, so they are also saying that that concept does not answer the mysteries surrounding Building 7.

  7. #85
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Rochester NY
    Posts
    4,763
    Ooooo, now THAT'S impressive grasshopper... No anger or malice, just reasonable. Nice.
    Which makes more sense to you?
    CONSERVATION - turning your thermostat back and being uncomfortable. Maybe saving 5-10%
    ENERGY EFFICIENCY - leaving your thermostat where everyone is comfortable. Saving 30-70%

    DO THE NUMBERS! Step on a HOMESCALE.
    What is comfort? Well, it AIN'T just TEMPERATURE!

    Energy Obese? An audit is the next step - go to BPI.org, or RESNET, and find an auditor near you.

  8. #86
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    1,245
    Quote Originally Posted by scrogdog View Post
    Brian, it is difficult to continue this conversation until you learn what we're actually talking about here.

    First off, Ted is correct. What I said was that buildings don't topple.

    Thanks, Ted, good to know that someone can at least follow.

    Also, again, I'm not the scientist here, but I have posted thier work, which should clear things up for you. Now, if only you were willing to learn! That you don't wish to and instead continue debating from a position of ingnorace is stunning.

    Do you wish to understand progressive collapse, or not?

    Incidentally, chairs are not designed to progressively collapse.

    Now, just one example from one of the papers I posted talks about EXACTLY the type of damage the YOU claim should topple a building;



    Did you note the part that said "that took out only a few lower floors"? Isn't that just the type of damage you were curious about? Did the building topple? Nope. Did it progressively collapse? Yep.

    This is only one paper as well. There are many examples in the history of progressive collapse.

    The idea of progressive collapse can be seen in the design diagrams of, AGAIN, the articles that I posted. It's about weight distribution. Either the system is overwhelmed or it is not. Partial failures DO NOT cause toppling. PERIOD.

    Now, that's not to say that it is theoretically impossible to topple a building. If you were paying attention (that's a laugh in itself right there!) I implied otherwise when I said that the aircraft did not have sufficient mass. So, yes, an object with sufficient mass could very well topple a building. Would you mind telling me, in the name of logic, what such an object might be?

    Maybe you could hire godzilla to throw an aircraft carrier at the empire state building.

    Brian, get real. Buildings are designed for "real life" incidents. Even after the MIT studies, no engineer or scientists recommended a re-design. Here's what Thomas Eagar, The Lord Professor of Materials Science at MIT said;



    In other words, while building codes certainly were affected, no one called for structural redesign as preparing for an aircraft strike would be impratical from a cost to benefit ratio standpoint. Instead, we focus on other systems that allow the building to be evacuated in the shortest amount of time possible.

    One more chance;

    http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/pe...Papers/466.pdf

    I suggest that you either read it, or concede the issue. You comments only show how much you DON'T know.

    Why would I bother continuing to debate someone who is CLEARLY clueless on the matter, especially when I have provided a way for you to become educated to some extent on the matter but refuse?
    Funny you cite the OKC bombing which was clearly a government Op as well. Not that you would believe it, no matter what evidence is provided to you. Eyewitness account testimony right after that event as well as 911 clearly mean no more to you than redneck mongoloids claiming to have been abducted by aliens, even though it was far too early in both accounts for any such witnesses to have an agenda. People like you used to infuriate me, now you just make me laugh. Why do you keep ignoring me? Probably because I'm not focusing on the building imploding into its own footprint at almost freefall speed and focusing more on smaller detials that add up to the sum of the big picture.

    In regards to your "scientific experts" (who'm you're so hung up on credintials yet ignore the whole of AE911 Truth), picture some of the most powerful people in the world perpetrating a ghastly criminal act upon the American people as a pretext to infinite war and a state of total contol. These people own and completely control the media, prestigious educational institutions, scientific organizations, ETC. Do you really think that they are not going to have their "experts" come out with reports to substantiate their fairytale?

    You mentioned in an earlier post that there is no proof that the glowing molten liquid pouring from the building was molten metal framework. You fail to realize that there is no proof to substantiate the theory that its office materials mixed with aluminum from the planes. No experiments were done on your side to prove this theory, just babble. NIST neglected to prove their own theory. This guy on Youtube at least tried to mix burned organic material with molten aluminum with no success.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6Fid_b3_eQ

    You ignored my first post that had a video and plenty of testimony stating that there was MANY cases of molten metal including but not limited to the red hot pit of molten metal at the base center of the building that burned for weeks. You need to address the molten metal that was found such as the "911 Meteorite". Don't dodge all this with a big post of hard headed babble. Please address the iron spheres, nan-thermite particles in the dust, and tons of evidence of molten STEEL. Lets keep it light and start with these items.
    You and this nitwit would get along great!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SLIzSCt_cg
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iI...layer_embedded
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCdRA09pztM
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkO0lZ7BZJc
    America; first we fight for our freedom,
    then we make laws to take it away.

    -Alfred E Newman

  9. #87
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Atlanta GA area
    Posts
    21,755
    Quote Originally Posted by tedkidd View Post
    Brian, that might be rephrased as a question unless you really want to put words in the mouths of others.

    Particularly when teasing or baiting you may lose capital with that approach. Of course you should do as I say and not as I do and watch the masters. They know how and where to draw the lines, AND how to not cross them.
    This is good advise if one wants to avoid a mandatory vacation at the hands of the mod staff.
    GA-HVAC-Tech

    Quality work at a fair price with excellent customer service!

    Romans Ch's 5-6-7-8

    2 Chronicles 7:14

  10. #88
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Woburn, MA
    Posts
    6,897
    Liberty, I am responding to multiple parties the best I can. I've already said that YouTube videos do not meet scientific standards.

    Guess what? That is true no matter how many times you post them.

    Dude, it's not my fault you slept through science class.

    Your experts are welcome to present a case scientifically. Perhaps it would be useful to ask yourself why they do not if they know so much.

    Not worth thier time? Too much work?

    Fortunately, we do have scientists who know the methods. Unfortunately your experts are not among them.

    So far. They still could but don't.

    Why is that do you think?

  11. #89
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Woburn, MA
    Posts
    6,897
    Awesome, Brian! Coherent, dude!

    Ok we'll go over the case if building 7 in great detail. Useful as it will serve to demonstrate many of the principles I've spoken of.

    Won't have time until Monday though.

    One thing, you mentioned the debris of building 7 what were you driving at there? Just so I can address if possible.

    You also might consider retaining that posting style.

  12. #90
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Dacula, GA
    Posts
    12,953
    Your doing a great job there scrog and very time consuming if I may say so. Describing with logic and details why it there was no inside job or conspiracy to take down the buildings other than the one of Al Quadea and radical Muslims. Thank you, thank you very much
    "I could have ended the war in a month. I could have made North Vietnam look like a mud puddle."
    "I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution."
    Barry Goldwater

  13. #91
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    3,741
    Quote Originally Posted by scrogdog View Post
    Awesome, Brian! Coherent, dude!

    Ok we'll go over the case if building 7 in great detail. Useful as it will serve to demonstrate many of the principles I've spoken of.

    Won't have time until Monday though.

    One thing, you mentioned the debris of building 7 what were you driving at there? Just so I can address if possible.

    You also might consider retaining that posting style.
    I did not mention debris of Building 7 in my last question in post #84. I did mention it earlier in that the debris of Building 7 was never allowed to be tested by scientists for stress analysis, cause of structural failure, temperatures reached within the structure or most importantly for the presence of incendiary compounds or evidence. The debris was whisked off to china for immediate recycling. The scientists thought that was strange since this high rise was the first to ever collapse from a simple office fire. Also the “Youtube Architects and Engineers” said this immediate removal and lack of investigation was a gross violation of law.

    BTW – Regarding my posting style, I don’t believe I was the only one slinging insults here…but let’s put that behind us. The problem with offensive comments is that one begets another until you lose track of who started it. I would rather just discuss the subject and have neither of us assume the other is out to lunch… or at least say that.

Page 7 of 31 FirstFirst 123456789101112131417 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event